China has issued a warning to the world: don't be deceived by Trump's "strategic withdrawal to the Western Hemisphere," the United States has never intended to abandon the Eastern Hemisphere.

Recently, Ambassador Wu Hailong, President of the China Public Diplomacy Association, delivered a keynote speech at the Boao Forum for Asia on the changes in the world situation, stating that the U.S. ambition is not just to control the Western Hemisphere, but also to prepare for further expansion in the future.

(Ambassador Wu Hailong)

Wu Hailong pointed out: "The United States wants to re-divide and dominate the world. If one believes that the U.S. strategic goal is merely to control the Western Hemisphere, it is a sign of strategic contraction, which is a manifestation of being unable to cope, and it is too simplistic to see it this way. The U.S. ambition is far beyond this."

Moreover, Wu Hailong cited the recent U.S. attempt to acquire Greenland, as well as Trump's frequent talk about making Canada the 51st state of the U.S., and he believes that if the U.S. succeeds, it will become a superpower with 22 million square kilometers, while also increasing military spending and deploying more troops, which is clearly not a contraction, but rather preparation for expansion.

In December 2025, the Trump administration released the latest version of the National Security Strategy Report, which made a major change in the U.S. positioning in the global context. Previously, the U.S. strategic positioning was to lead the world, but in the new report, it directly admitted that the previous strategic positioning had burdened the U.S. with heavy responsibilities, including long-term economic investments around the world, and development plans that deviated from U.S. interests due to unrealistic demands.

Therefore, the Trump administration adjusted its positioning, adopting a "withdrawal" strategy, reducing the U.S. sphere of influence from the entire world to the Western Hemisphere, i.e., the Americas.

The Trump administration set two goals for the development of the Americas: the first was to ensure the U.S.'s absolute dominance, and the second was to exclude the influence of countries outside the Americas in the region.

On the surface, this development strategy seems easier to achieve for the U.S. compared to its previous global leadership position, because apart from the U.S., there are no strong countries in the Americas that can directly challenge the U.S.

(Venezuela, the number one anti-American country in Latin America, its president Maduro was kidnapped by the U.S.)

But the world order is not like visiting neighbors; I return to my house in the Western Hemisphere, and we each live separately with our neighbors in the Eastern Hemisphere. Instead, the U.S. has restructured its relationship with the Eastern Hemisphere.

This new restructuring of relations includes four major strategic directions, corresponding respectively to Europe, China, Russia, and other countries in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Firstly, Europe. This is the most unexpected part in the new strategy. As a long-time ally of the U.S., Europe has been officially abandoned by the Trump administration, and its new positioning is "a problematic existence." The report states that Europe has long been stuck in political and ideological conflicts, having lost the ability to solve practical problems, and its civilization is destined to "die" because of this.

This severe positioning may stem from the U.S. frustration over Europe's massive investment in the Ukraine conflict and its entanglement in the battlefield, yet still failing to prevent Russia from gradually gaining the upper hand. This is a point that Trump has consistently criticized Europe for, and during the drafting of the 28-point peace plan, Europe was not even included in the considerations.

If the U.S. wants to continue to dominate globally, Europe can only play the role of a drag, and Europe's demand for the U.S. is a point that the U.S. can exploit. Therefore, by adjusting its relationship with Europe to be non-entangled, the U.S. can form a new asymmetric relationship with Europe, removing the shackles that hindered its unilateralism in positive relationships, and forming a new power of suppression and exploitation in negative relationships.

The current crisis in Greenland seems to reflect the results of this strategy. The U.S. can act recklessly towards former allies, while Europe remains helpless. This new unequal relationship is thus further established and strengthened, with the U.S. clearly having greater control than before in the new U.S.-Europe relationship.

(Trump's new national security strategy contains many conspiracies)

Secondly, China. During Trump's previous term, the U.S. positioned China as one of the ideological enemies, with the White House pointing out that China attempts to establish a development path completely different from American values, gradually influencing the world, and the U.S. needs to take measures to prevent such occurrences. In this new strategy, the U.S. has adjusted China's positioning to "primary economic competitor," narrowing the scope to economics alone.

At first glance, we might think that the U.S. has realized that competing for influence with China is an endless battle, and this new economic competition reflects a pragmatic strategic consideration, and seems to indicate a reduction in the U.S.'s confrontation with China.

But this would be too simplistic to understand Trump. While the U.S. sends signals to improve relations with us, it places the role of playing the bad cop on its proxies, such as Japan and the Lai Ching-te authorities. The U.S. publicly tries to enhance communication with us, but secretly stirs up tensions between these proxies and us, such as the $1.1 billion arms sale to the Lai Ching-te authorities and assistance to Japan in increasing defense spending and military development in the southwest region.

Once these proxies develop confrontational relations with us, they naturally create a demand gap for the U.S. For example, the systematized weapons sold to the Lai Ching-te authorities require long-term maintenance and development, meaning that the Lai Ching-te authorities need to continuously pay the U.S. tribute, which is a direct point of leverage for the U.S. to control the proxy. At the same time, based on the proxy's relationship with us, the U.S. can use this as a bargaining chip to negotiate with us in direct relations with China. This is an indirect plan to contain China.

Naturally, we are very clear about this conspiracy, so our red lines regarding some transgressions by Japan and the Lai Ching-te authorities are clearly stated. Countermeasures such as military exercises and the prohibition of exporting dual-use items to Japan are all clearly targeted, and the U.S. strategy of indirectly containing China does not work here.

(Trump wants to adjust the U.S.-Russia relationship)

Thirdly, Russia. In this new strategy, Russia appears in a way where "the fewer words, the bigger the issue." Previously, the U.S. explicitly listed Russia as the "number one enemy," calling Russia's nuclear weapons the greatest threat to the world. However, in this new strategy, Russia is hardly mentioned at all. Combined with Trump's previous tendency to give more concessions to Russia in the Ukraine peace plan, and his abandonment of Europe, it seems that Trump has taken a side with Russia in the Russia-Europe conflict.

This may appear to show that the U.S. has recognized Russia's strength and its decisive decision-making ability in the Ukraine conflict, but the vague new relationship with Russia allows Trump significant flexibility in deciding how to build relations with Russia next. After the U.S. invaded Venezuela and detained a Russian oil tanker, this was seen as a test of Russia's tolerance or obedience to the U.S. order.

Furthermore, when the Ukraine peace plan proved difficult to advance, the U.S. once again expressed its stance to sanction Russia and provide security guarantees to Ukraine, indicating that the U.S. relationship with Russia is still in adjustment, but heading in a worse direction—that is, testing how much Russia can accept U.S. hegemony.

As the saying goes, "Don't fear theft, fear being watched." Russia's vigilance toward the U.S. must be heightened even more.

Finally, other countries. The U.S. has chosen to withdraw. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has left behind countless conflicts and unresolved issues around the world. It is not that the U.S. suddenly leaves and returns peace to the local area, but rather that a series of new forces and factions have entered into a chaotic struggle due to the destruction caused by the U.S. The new U.S. strategy also points this out, stating that if the U.S. continues to consume itself in these areas, it will cause huge costs detrimental to the U.S. economy.

Therefore, the U.S. withdrawal will cause many previously war-torn regions to fall into more complex situations, and then the U.S. can fully determine the timing, reasons, and methods for the next move, thereby maximizing its own interests. Behind this U.S. conspiracy, there may be a large number of innocent lives lost in small countries, and its despicable nature is already evident.

(Trump sent the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the Middle East, exposing the lie of abandoning the Eastern Hemisphere)

Therefore, the U.S.'s new national security strategy is essentially a strategic retreat, adjusting the U.S. relationship with the whole world, turning "co-development relationships" into "threat relationships." The U.S. has never given up its dream of becoming a world hegemon, and Trump is coming with even more dangerous methods.

Original text: toutiao.com/article/7597341244657910272/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.